Mediaboss Marketing

Also Monday, both officers invoked their Fifth Amendment right not to testify as they did during the first trial

ST. LOUIS Prosecutors trying to convict two former St. Louis police officers for assaulting one of their own as he worked undercover as a protester rested its case Monday with perhaps its most powerful evidence against them: text messages.

In the messages, former Officer Dustin Boone uses the n-word and sends a lengthy apology to the victim in the case, Detective Luther Hall. In one, he tells a friend, I feel bad, we obviously didn't know he was a policeman.

In others, former Officer Christopher Myers writes, Lets whoop some (expletive) as the protests were about to start in 2017 after a judge acquitted a white St. Louis police officer of murdering a Black man.

The jury also heard from a doctor who treated Hall, and said his injuries are consistent with the alleged assault because he did not complain or experience any neck or back problems before it.

Patrick Kilgore, who is representing Boone, suggested the neck issues could be degenerative.

One noticeable absence from the prosecutions witness list is former Officer Randy Hays. He has already pleaded guilty to his role in the alleged assault and is awaiting sentencing.

He testified during the first trial and changed his recollection of what the officers did during the alleged assault.

This is the second time these officers are on trial for their role in this assault.

A jury returned partial verdicts following a two-week trial in March.

Boone is facing the most serious of charges in this case, aiding and abetting in the deprivation of civil rights. It carries a sentence of 10 years in prison.

Myers is charged with tampering with evidence to impede an investigation for allegedly destroying Halls cellphone.

The government must prove Boone knew he was aiding and abetting in the deprivation of Halls civil rights. His defense has focused heavily on how Boone assumed his fellow officers had probable cause to make the arrest, and thats why he held Hall down by putting a knee in his back and pushed his head back down to the ground.

The same can be said for Myers.

The government must prove Myers is the one who struck the phone, and that he knew there was a criminal investigation he needed to impede.

His defense has focused heavily on creating reasonable doubt around who actually destroyed the phone, suggesting at one point Monday that an officer who stepped on it could have shattered the screen and a pebble in that officers shoe could have created the circular shape of the cracks.

The prosecution has said the crack to the phone clearly came from an asp and went through photographs taken by a newspaper photographer and Halls own cellphone to demonstrate its theory.

The defense also spent hours going through the images, and the corresponding timestamps, showing their clients were not near Hall during the alleged assault.

Prosecutors have said the last few frames caught on Halls cellphone show an officer raising a baton before striking the phone and the audio cuts off. Defense attorneys suggested Myers was not near Hall at the moment the phone was struck.

Myers face can be seen in the last few moments before the phone cuts off entirely. His attorneys say he picked it up, saw blood on it, and threw it out of the way. Before Hall was taken away, Myers put the phone back in Halls backpack another move his attorneys say prove he had no intention of destroying evidence.

Also Monday, both officers invoked their Fifth Amendment right not to testify as they did during the first trial.

The defense called four officers to the stand and is expected to call additional officers Tuesday.

Lt. Joe Crews was among the officer called. He said he saw Hall at police headquarters holding a towel to his bloody lip and asked him what happened.

He told me he was running with the (expletives), the worst of the worse, when the police got him.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Carrie Costantin reminded Crews of his statement to the FBI in which he said Hall told him he was running with everyone and got his (expletive) beat by the police.

The defense is expected to call at least two more witnesses Tuesday, and the jury could start deliberations Tuesday afternoon.

See the rest here:
Prosecution rests in 2nd trial of officers accused of assaulting Black colleague by again focusing on texts - KSDK.com

Nayda Alvarez's family has lived at least five generations on land on the Texas-Mexico border where her house is but 200 feet from the Rio Grande river.

Not only is there no need for a border wall near her home in Starr County, she said, but if one were to be erected, it would be just feet from the back of her home. The high school teacher fought the Trump administration in court over an attempt to build on her property and if Texas Gov. Greg Abbott moves forward with his announced plan to try to accomplish what President Donald Trump did not, Alvarez will fight him too.

Hes trying to make his portfolio look real good because he wants to run for president, Alvarez surmised.

Abbott is likely to face logistical challenges because most of the borderland in Texas is privately owned and some of it is federally owned, which would require the Biden administration to approve any barriers built on federal land.

The Republican governor said Wednesday he would use $250 million in state money and crowdsourced financing to start building a wall on Texas' 1,200-mile border with Mexico. He did not specify how much the project would cost, where it will go and how long it would be.

Abbott claimed that a combination of state land and land volunteered by property owners would yield 100s of miles of wall. He said he is asking the federal government to return land obtained for the U.S. government's wall and return it to private citizens who can allow Texas to finish the job.

In response to the federal governments neglect of all of the people who live along the border, the people who are facing the consequences of the spread of drugs like fentanyl, Texas is stepping up and doing more than any other state ever has done to respond to these challenges along the border, Abbott said. Texas taxpayers are having to step up so we as a state can protect our citizens."

The United States currently has 771 miles of barriers along its border with Mexico, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. During the Trump administration, 373 miles of old or outdated barriers were replaced and 80 miles of new "primary and secondary" wall were erected where no barriers previously existed. Wall construction mainly focused on federally owned land in Arizona, California and New Mexico.

Trumps signature campaign promise faced consistent legal and environmental obstacles in Texas, which has the largest section of the U.S.-Mexico border, most of it without fencing. And much of the land along the Rio Grande, the river that forms the border in Texas, is privately held and environmentally sensitive.

The federal government can seize private property for public use through eminent domain, a process that could take years.

David Donatti of the ACLU of Texas said there are 100 court cases pending that involve the government trying to seize land through eminent domain. The Biden administration has not formally dropped them though it has said it is re-evaluating them.

So these cases remain in a case of limbo where the Biden administration could continue to press these cases, take property, build border wall, but they have not given that sort of concrete commitment one way or the other, Donatti said.

He called Abbotts announcement all hot air.

I think its a preposterous idea, Donatti said.

He said that although he hoped it would come to nothing, he thought it likely that Abbott was determined to do something. If the governor tried to use the power of eminent domain to take land, the ACLU would contest his authority to do that, Donatti said.

Any wall would have to be far enough away from the Rio Grandes flood plain to honor a treaty between the United States and Mexico and so it could end up being some sort of freestanding wall somewhere in the interior of Texas, he said.

So, whatever the governor builds we imagine would be at least a mile inland, if not more, thereby walling off part of the state to an area south of the border, he said.

The issue with migrants aside for a moment, the border wall is also reeking untold damage on the environment

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires the government pay just compensation to anyone whose land is taken for public use. But the government can deposit an amount it deems fair with the court, then seek to take the land immediately on the basis that a border wall is urgently needed.

Domingo Garcia, national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said that he thought few landowners along the Rio Grande supported walls or barriers on their property and would likely fight as long as they can. He also questioned whether a court would consider a government request an emergency or legitimate public use of the land.

Its highly doubtful that any court would grant eminent domain to build a 13th century wall to deal with a 21st century problem, Garcia said.

Donatti noted that the Trump administration had been spending $20 billion a mile on the border, far in excess of what Abbott could spend. The state of Texas has set up a webpage and post office box so anyone can donate money for Abbott's wall. The ACLU said it would scrutinize the project for transparency and public accountability.

These projects are extremely cost intensive and allow ample opportunity for fraud and grift, he said.

An online fundraising campaign called We Build the Wall, ended with four indictments, including that of Trumps former adviser, Steve Bannon, accused with the others of defrauding hundreds of thousands of donors. Trump pardoned Bannon before he left office.

Large numbers of migrants have been seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border by turning themselves over to U.S. Border Patrol agents. At the same time the number of families and children crossing into the U.S. without their parents has dropped sharply since March and April.

Abbott has taken increased action over immigration since Biden took office,including announcing last week that state troopers will now begin arresting migrants crossing the southern border and charging them with trespassing.

His plan has drawn skepticism and ridicule. Critics note that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the power to enforce immigration laws, including prosecuting illegal entry, is that of the federal government's. Whether or not there is a presidential run in Abbotts future, he is up for re-election as governor next year and is being accused of using the issue for political benefit.

This is just political grandstanding by the governor who is running for re-election, said Garcia. He knows he has no authority, he knows he has no ability to build a wall much less arrest people for trespassing and putting them in jail.

The chairwoman for the Native American tribe Hia C-ed Oodham, which means Sand People, shares her story about how the Trump administrations border wall has hurt her community. Chairwoman Christina Andrews said construction has already destroyed a childrens shrine and sacred trails.

Donatti said that the ACLU of Texas would scrutinize trespassing and other arrests and Abbotts efforts to ratchet up penalties. It is well established that the federal government has authority over the countrys immigration laws and if a state interferes by arresting non Americans, there is the possibility of diplomatic problems, he said.

Meanwhile, Alvarez is hoping the Biden administration drops hers and other eminent domain cases.

We cant celebrate until we get a real dismissal, she said.

However, she's still worried that going forward the security of her property will depend on the political affiliation of the administration in office.

Alvarez also questioned claims by Abbott and others who have said those crossing illegally are armed and dangerous. The immigrants crossing the river are mostly trying to claim asylum but would be turned away on the bridges, she said.

The violence is coming in? Where? Because I sure dont see it, she said.

Read the rest here:
Gov. Abbott Vowed to Build a Wall With Mexico. Texas Borderland Owners Say Not in My Backyard - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Did you know that there are some instances in which the United States, state and municipal governments can come take your property, even without your consent?

Its a legal right called eminent domain, and if you have never heard of it or want to know more, here are some key questions as to how it happens and how to deal with it.

Eminent domain is the Fifth Amendment right of a government entity to take your property for a public purpose. The government has to provide proof that the property will have a beneficial use to the public, and also has to make a fair value offer for the property.

There is a wide range of situations, but the most common ones are for construction of roads/highways and public buildings, supplying water to a community or for defense purposes.

There are cases when it can be. If the government makes an offer for more than the property is worth or if a property owner doesnt owe much more money on a loan, eminent domain can be great for that owner. But it can work the other way, also. If an owner owes more money on a property than is offered by the government, it can be a crushing blow.

Ad

If someone is unhappy about an eminent domain offer from the government, an owner can retain the services of a lawyer and fight for a better offer. As part of the process, that lawyer can also hire a forensics appraiser that can evaluate the value of a property and testify in front of a judge in defense of that evaluation.

Roughly 95% of cases are settled before going to court, according to Rick Dreggors, a forensic appraiser in Orlando with 34 years of experience in the industry. But there are instances in which cases arent settled, and a judge will decide the true value of an offer and what an owner should be getting from the government.

On this most recent episode of You Have Real Estate With Justin Clark, attorney Justin Clark chats about eminent domain with Dreggors.

To watch the full segment, hit play on the video above.

See the original post:
There are instances in which the government can take your home. Heres how. - WKMG News 6 & ClickOrlando

Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trumps judges on Americans rights and liberties. Cases in the series can be found by issue and by judge at this link

Trump Ninth Circuit judges Patrick Bumatay, Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, Daniel Bress, and Lawrence VanDyke argued in dissent that police failure to give someone Miranda warnings before interrogation, as required by the Supreme Court, does not violate the Constitution and subject officers to liability for violating constitutional rights. The majority, including Trump judge Eric Miller, rejected that view and let stand a panel decision holding exactly the opposite in Tekoh v County of Los Angeles.

Terence Tekoh, a Black immigrant from Cameroon, was working at a medical center in Los Angeles when a patient accused him of sexual assault. An LA County police detective found Tekoh working in the hospital and began to question him, but never gave him the Miranda warnings required by the Supreme Court before interrogation. According to Tekoh, the deputy brought him into a small windowless office, blocked his path to the exit, and accused him of the sexual assault. After Tekoh maintained his innocence during more than 35 minutes of questioning, the detective falsely told him that the alleged incident had been captured on videotape, but Tekoh continued to state that he was innocent. The deputy ignored Tekohs request for a lawyer and Tekoh then got up to leave. The deputy then stepped on Tekohs toes, put his hand on his gun, and used racial epithets in threatening to have Tekoh and his family deported and put your black ass where it belongs. Tekoh later explained that this left him shaking and triggered flashbacks of police brutality incidents in Cameroon. The deputy then handed Tekoh a pen and paper, and essentially dictated a confession that he demanded that he sign.

Although Tekoh was charged with sexual assault and the statement was used against him, a jury acquitted him on all charges. He then sued the deputy for damages for violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that the deputys failure to provide Miranda warnings violated the Fifth Amendment, the jury found against Tekoh, and he appealed. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel, including Trump judge Miller, unanimously reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously refused to explain to the jury that, if proven, the deputys failure to provide Tekoh with Miranda warnings and the use of his statement at trial deprived him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, for which the deputy could be held accountable.

When the deputy requested that the Ninth Circuit reconsider the decision, a majority of the judges who voted, including Trump judge Miller, declined. But Trump judge Bumatay, joined by Trump judges Bennett, Nelson, Bress, and VanDyke, joined by a few others, harshly dissented. Based on their own view of the history of the Fifth Amendment and the right against self-incrimination, they maintained that Miranda is only a prophylactic rule, as the Supreme Court has often referred to it, and that failure to provide Miranda warnings does not violate the Constitution. The dissent made clear that this question is much more than theoretical. Since police officers can be held liable only for violating a constitutional right, Bumatay stated, the dissents view means that the deputy in this case, or any police officer in any case, cannot be held liable under federal civil rights law for violating the prophylactic rule of Miranda. According to the dissenters, the panel decision was an example of brazen judicial overreach that contradicts the text and history of the Fifth Amendment and the weight of precedent.

Although agreeing with some of the dissents analysis, Trump judge Miller explained why the dissents proposed result was unacceptable. Even assuming that Bumatay was correct about the history of the Fifth Amendment, and agreeing that Miranda was not an originalist decision, Miller wrote that Ninth Circuit judges lack authority to disregard the Supreme Courts precedent. As Miller explained, in striking down a Congressional law that tried to overturn Miranda in the Dickerson case, the Supreme Court specifically held that Miranda announced a constitutional rule and, as the Court indicated in another case, established a personal constitutional right. Federal civil rights law thus provides a remedy, Miller stated, when police like the deputy in this case fail to provide Miranda warnings before interrogating a suspect like Tekoh. The dissents arguments may help the deputy in preparing a writ of certiorari to try to persuade the current Supreme Court to change the law, Miller concluded, but they are a poor reason for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the panel decision.

As a result of the Ninth Circuits decision, Terence Tekoh will have a proper opportunity to get justice and accountability for the deputys misconduct in interrogating him, including the failure to provide Miranda warnings. Yet the opinions of the Trump judges in the case, including even Judge Miller who agreed with the result, are extremely troubling. Putting aside what the Supreme Court may or may not do on the issue, the Trump judges views suggest significant disregard for the importance of holding police accountable for the violation of constitutional rights as in Miranda. Indeed, a few more votes would have allowed the dissenting Trump judges to reconsider the case and rule against Tekoh.

To help preserve and extend the principle of police accountability for violating constitutional rights, it is crucial to our fight for our courts that President Biden nominate and the Senate promptly confirm judges for the Ninth Circuit who recognize the importance of this principle. Four judges on that court have stated that they will be taking senior status upon confirmation of their successors, who have yet to be nominated.

The rest is here:
Trump Judges Try to Rule that Failure to Provide Miranda Warnings Does Not Violate the Constitution and Allow Lawsuits Against Police: Confirmed...

In March, I wrote about National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System. This petition challenged the federal policy that excludes women from the draft. At the time, I considered whether the Biden Administration would defend the constitutionality of the policy. Ultimately, after several extensions, the SG filed a brief that punted on the constitutional question. Rather, the SG asked the Court to deny the petition so that Congress can change the policy. Sensible enough.

Today, the Court denied cert. And there was a statement respecting the denial of certiorari. It was written by Justice Sotomayor, and joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan. Scratch that. Justice Kagan did not join. It was Justice Kavanaugh. On quick read, I simply assumed it was Justice Kagan. The team at SCOTUSBlog made the same error. But no, it was Justice Kavanaugh.

Let's walk through the statement. Justice Sotomayor begins with a rousing statement about the original meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Scratch that. Justice Sotomayor writes about the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from discriminating on the basis of sex absent an "'exceedingly persuasive justification.'" Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 9) (quoting United States v. Virginia, 518U. S. 515, 531 (1996)); see Califano v. Westcott, 443 U. S. 76 (1979); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199 (1977); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636 (1975); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677 (1973). Cf. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347U. S. 497 (1954).

Next, the statement expressed agnosticism about how Congress was addressing that issue. Scratch that. Justice Sotomayor quoted legislative history (!) describing the "hope" (!) of one member that a provision may be "incorporated" (!) in a future bill.

Just a few months ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the report, where Chairman Jack Reed expressed his "hope" that a gender-neutral registration requirement will be "incorporated into the next national defense bill." Tr. of Hearing on Final Recommendations and Report of the [NCMNPS] before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, 117th Cong., 1st Sess., 21 (Mar. 11, 2021).

I need to check Reading Law to see what Justice Scalia thought about citing aspirational statements of legislative history.

The statement concludes with a firm deference to Congress on matters of national affairs. Scratch that. The dissenters will give Congress a bit of time to resolve this issue, but if they don't reach the right result, the Court will.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether Congress will end gender-based registration under the Military Selective Service Act. But at least for now, the Court's longstandingdeference to Congress on matters of national defense and military affairs cautions against granting review while Congress actively weighs the issue. I agree with the Court's decision to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

That's a really nice bicameralism-and-presentment you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

This statement is entirely predictable from Justice Sotomayor. Ditto for Justice Breyer.So let's talk about Justice Kavanaugh's join.

First, I am no longer convinced that Justice Kavanaugh is an actual originalist. Sure, he can talk the talk, but time and again, he writes and joins opinions that have no grounding in the original meaning of the Constitution. In a granted case, he would follow non-originalist precedent. But when writing about the denial of certiorari, he is free to write about the Constitution's original meaning. Here, he endorsed one of the most atextual opinions in modern Supreme Court history, Bolling v. Sharpe. And this citation was not a one-off. Justice Kavanaugh also cited Bolling, along withBrownin hisBostockdissent. Now I think the outcome in Bollingcan be justified on originalist groundsRandy and I talk about that case in our book. But an unexplained citation to Bollingdoes not reflect the work of a careful originalist. And his brief footnote in Bostock doesn't cut it. (Democratic Senators wasted so much time asking judicial nominees ifBrownwas correctly decided; they should have asked aboutBolling to watch the noms squirm).

Second, I fear that Justice Kavanuagh will forever try to prove that he is fair to women. In the past, his jurisprudence was not exactly pro-feminist.SeeAzar v. Garza. But the Blasey-Ford allegations, coupled with his contentious second confirmation hearing, may have changed that calculus. This join is a useful way for Justice Kavanaugh to virtue signal he favors gender equality.

Third, I think this opinion reflects another savvy move from Justice Kagan. Why didn't she join the statement? It was basically a tribute to Justice Ginsburg. I'm sure Justice Kagan agreed with it. But when four Justices join a statement respecting the denial of cert, that suggests there are four votes to grant in the future. Justice Kagan's decision to sit out gave Justice Kavanaugh a lane to join.

The past few weeks have been very sleepy. The Court has issued a string of unanimous decisions in relatively unimportant cases. A storm is brewing for the end of the term. Will it be Red June? Or more likely, Purple June?

Read more:
Let's talk about Justice Kavanaugh's vote in National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System - Reason